Posted
by
timothy
on Wednesday October 22, 2008 @02:17PM
from the consider-this-a-warning dept.

Invisible Pink Unicorn writes "Despite nationwide public support for his initial death sentence, a three-judge appeals court has reduced the sentence of Sayed Parwez Kambakhsh to 20 years in prison. Kambakhsh was charged with circulating an article on women's rights that he found online. From the article: 'Family members have said Kambakhsh was beaten and threatened with death until he signed a confession and that local journalists who expressed support for him were warned they would be arrested if they persisted.'"

Don't forget "use" and "possession" crimes. They should be in the top 10.

AC said: "planning crimes *is* a crime"

If that were true, crime dramas would be dead in the water. So would real life law enforcement. And security companies. And pretty much every job that requires someone to predict or understand the behavior of criminals. Even if someone were to intend to commit a crime, they should not be punished unless they actually attempt to carry it out. Everyone should be given a chance, unless you thought Minority Report represented a good idea.

Don't forget "use" and "possession" crimes. They should be in the top 10.

Indeed. If you haven't, you should consider reading the most excellent book on this subject, Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do by Peter McWilliams, available from amazon here [amazon.com] and full text online here [mcwilliams.com].

(That's not a referral link, I won't make any money if you buy the book from amazon via that link, I'm just posting this because I happen to think that the world will be a better place if more people read that book.)

The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by H.Sapiens is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes, wants the sacharrine adoration of his creations, that he can be persuaded by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not recieve this flattery. Yet this ridiculous notion, without one real shred of evidence to bolster it, has gone on to found one of the oldest, largest and least productive industries in history.

Did you miss the part that said "Despite nationwide public support for his initial death sentence"? This isn't the Afghan government opressing it's citizens, it's the citizens asking the government to kill this man.

Which means that we are the ones saying the citizens don't have a right to determine the laws of their land. I wonder who the totalitarians are in this case.

You know, a long time ago, the citizens of America in the south didn't have a problem with slavery. Does that make it right?

Nobody can be trusted to decide what is right and wrong for everyone. It is much better for some people to live under unjust and unethical laws than it would be for those same unjust principles to be imposed on everyone.

Every time you think "my morals should be imposed on the world because I'm right" stop and imagine how your life would be if the people you most disagree with were able to apply their principles to you.

um you should get your story straight. there are 50 separate governments within the USA, not all of them have death penalties and of those that do, less than half kills more than one person a decade. The only notable exception is the same idiot state that brought us George Bush.the USA is closer to european union than to one country. A fact that is often forgotten.

Mostly because the rest of the world suffers at the hand of the Federal Government. Were the states to actually act and reign it in, then they might be aware of the 50 governments that make up the Union.

Pre-Civil war, when one referred to the US, it was in the form of "The United States are...." After the Civil War, it became "The United States is...." so it seems we thought of the states as sovereign entities, much like the "city states" of Greece. The word "state" itself, actually originally refers to a sovereign entity (e.g. "Secretary of State", "state sponsored terrorism") whereas a province is a dependent subdivision.

Yeah, all those poor bastards that suffocate under that avalanche of foreign aid we send out every year**I have no doubt whatsoever you have found a way to prove that our foreign aid is an evil machination, as well.

That's not even difficult. Figure out what portion of your "foreign aid" is in the form of weaponry designed to kill people, and you'll have it.

since as everyone knows: if you spend 6 months working in a soup kitchen helping people you get 1 free murder which is of course canceled out by your good deed and for which you should not be punished.:-)

22% is "military aid," which still leaves the US as the #1 producer of non-military foreign aid. Now figure out what percentage of that 22% is in the form of disaster relief and other aid operations using the US military (classified as "military aid" by the state department.

Even though the linked article paints a militaristic view of US involvement in foreign aid, it concedes that US "military" aid is often anything but. The article does state (and rightly) that our aid dollars are not being spent as efficiently as they ought to be, and that civilian organizations can often do a better job (private foreign aid from the US topped $122 billion last y

Hey, as a condition of your military alliances and free trade agreements, why don't you require foreign governments implement the bill of rights instead of the DMCA. I mean it, contact your congressman about this please.

In the meantime, I'm doing a study on US oppression, specifically on the different ways the US oppresses its own citizens compared to citizens of other countries. If you could help me get US citizenship so I can further my studies, I'd be grateful. I'm willing to suffer this oppression, s

What is most fair, if you're comparing the generosity of different groups ?

Comparing which portion of their wealth the different groups give?

Comparing how much each group gives pro person ?

Or comparing how much each group gives in total ?

Only if you do the latter does USA look good. But this is the view where a 300 people group donating $1000 is consideres more generous than a 30 person group donating $500, which is frankly absurd.

If you do it per capita, then the leader is luxembur at $500/person/year, followed by 10 other countries above $100. USA is at $25.

If you do it relative to wealth, then Norway is top with donating $10 for every $1000 in gdp (i.e 1%), USA is horribly, embarassingly low on the list, donating not 1%, not 0.5%, but less than 0.2% of GDP.

It's not much to brag about that you've donated 10 times as much as sweden -- when you're a country 50 times as large as sweden.

um you should get your story straight. there are 50 separate governments within the USA

There is one government of the USA, and more than 50 separate governments in the USA (1 federal government, 50 state governments, and, beyond administrative subdivisions of states, possibly others, depending on whether one considers territories like the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands or Puerto Rico "in" the USA.)

the USA is closer to european union than to one country.

Um, no.

The US, since it is one nation, is clearly more "like" one nation than it is like any confederation of independent nations.

Sure, it has a federal government whose present structure grants the subordinate states fairly broad areas of autonomy, but then, its hardly unique among the nations of the world in having that kind of structure.

Most of the north didn't want to get rid of slavery either. Nor did most of the soldiers fighting for the north.

[citation needed]

Where do you think they put the black people who fought with them? The front lines.. in front of all the white people.. so they died first.

This is the exact opposite of the truth. Right up until the end of the war (and again in the World Wars) black US soldiers had to fight their own command structure to be allowed to fight on the front lines. Of course, this was still deeply racist, but it was racism of a very different kind than the Confederacy's.

Even if you're talking about a time near the Civil War you would still be wrong. Most of the north didn't want to get rid of slavery either. Nor did most of the soldiers fighting for the north.

Funny, since the absentee ballots cast by the soldiers and sailors were overwhelmingly in favor of emancipation when Maryland brought it to a vote in 1864. James Loewen put it poetically in Lies My Teacher Told Me [google.com]:

Just as these soldiers marched into battle with "John Brown's Body" upon their lips, so their minds had c

Did you miss the part that said "Despite nationwide public support for his initial death sentence"? This isn't the Afghan government opressing it's citizens, it's the citizens asking the government to kill this man.

Which means that we are the ones saying the citizens don't have a right to determine the laws of their land. I wonder who the totalitarians are in this case.

Kind of hard to change your ways when you are facing torture and death to do it. Naturally, if you eliminate those of the minority, the sent

"during WWII were the allied forces stepping on the rights of German citizens when the party they supported began singling out the Jews as a scapegoat before putting thousands of them to death?"

The allies didn't have any information about the Holocaust until 1942, and their leaders were sceptical about the veracity of the sources at that time, so it wasn't a motivating factor in any of their decisions. It should also be noted that very few Germans knew about it until after the Nazis had been defeated (which was also the time that the public in allied countries started to hear about it), because Nazi propaganda told them the Jews were being resettled in newly conquered lands, and they made films for domestic consumption showing how well they were being cared for and how happy they were about the chance to "lead productive lives helping to build the Reich". It's unlikely that they'd have bothered to manufacture and spread propaganda of this sort if they though that they had significant public support for their Final Solution.

NB: The initial scepticism about early reports of Nazi atrocities seems strange today, but is perhaps more understandable when seen in the context of WWI, which had only been over for a couple of decades, and was therefore still a major influence on the minds of both the leadership (military and government) and people of both the allies and Germany. A lot of false rumours about German atrocities were flying around during that war, including some that seem ludicrous to us nowadays, e.g. the Germans having factories near the Western front that made soap out of their own and allied dead, German and Austrian soldiers killing and eating large numbers of Belgian babies, mass crucifixions of allied POWs, and other things that were later found to be either complete rubbish, or massive exaggerations of single incidents by disturbed individuals or small groups who had subsequently been executed by their own side for their crimes. And although the allied leadership in WWI was happy to use such rumours for propaganda purposes, they did so in full knowledge of their false nature, so they can perhaps be forgiven for thinking that the rumours which initially reached them about real Nazi atrocities might not be true.

This isn't the Afghan government opressing it's citizens, it's the citizens asking the government to kill this man.

Actually, its both.

The Afghan government is, in fact, oppressing some of its own citizens, including this man. That this oppression is also popular does not stop it from being government oppression. Nor does the fact that there is a widespread support for even more extreme oppression than is being committed. Indeed, government oppression is often popular (often because the government has deliberately set up the victims of that oppression to take the blame for problems in society, or because the government has conducted the oppression as a way of winning plaudits from a society that already blames those being oppressed for problems in society), and oftentimes the mob supports even more extreme measures than those the government enacts in its oppression.

There is a reason that, e.g., America's founders did not view a popularly elected government with unlimited unauthority as a suitable safeguard of liberty, and instead set up an almost totally hamstrung government and then, when that was clearly on the road to failure from lack of sufficient authority to get things done, a more powerful but still tightly restricted government.

Well you know what ? Some of those people actually do "get it", that it's a little crazy to kill someone because they can tell the difference between a woman and a goat.

Those people often emigrate to Canada, the U.S. or Western Europe, to live with like-minded people. Maybe they realize their homeland is too far gone to be saved.

Regardless of what we think, humanity runs its course. The best thing we can do is support those who seek change, either at home or abroad. In that same stream of consciousness, we must protect our own values, just as religious fanatics protect theirs.

You can't tell others how to life their lives, but you can stop them from ruining yours!

Ah yes, so if millions demand that some category of people X be killed, they should be.

I didn't say they should. However I believe we should choose our battles, and if we choose to tell others how to behave, the same standard should be applied to us. I believe we should not kill people at all.

this shows that they are wholly incompetent and have no respect for the rights of others

Again, the same should be said about the United States. Removing the Taliban from government is not going to change the fact that the majority of the population believes this man should be killed. How exactly we go about convincing millions of people not to execute people is the unknown question. We can't even do it in some countries that claim to be civilized.

each person should be able to live their lives without undue interference from others and being prosecuted for bullshit reasoning

As a Canadian, I've been cautiously supportive of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. Hamid Karzai has pleaded, in person, with the Canadian Parliament to keep troops in Afghanistan for as long as we can afford to, citing that a swift withdrawal by Western nations would undoubtedly result in the country being torn apart by warlords and extremists. This is a sentiment that I can agree with and support in principle.

Then I hear about these ridiculous trumped-up charges based on Islamic law. Yes, Middle-Eastern culture is fundamentally different than ours. No, we don't have a right to tell other nations how to run themselves socially.

But the question we have to ask ourselves is do we want to be in bed with a nation, irregardless of that nation's values, that oppresses its own people?

This is the kind of situation that calls for passive condemnation. If our troops are in a country to help them rebuild their society in the name of democracy, how can we reconcile that with the way the new regime oppresses its citizens? It becomes a "lesser of the evils" argument.

If this is the society we are helping to build, then perhaps we shouldn't be helping at all.

You suggest that we, the western nations, have no right to tell Afghanistan that it cannot kill or imprison someone for raising political issues. I suggest you flip the coin and look at the other side. If Afghanistan wants the help of the west, then it must accept commonly accepted human rights as part of the package.

While the facts of your post is true, the conclusion is unreasonable. Sort of like if I said "You can accuse the GP of hypocrisy when your country is no longer hypocritical."

The actions of the HRCs have nothing to do with the GP's opinion, and you have no way of knowing whether (s)he condemns them with as much fervor as he does the topic under discussion. I, for one, agree that supporting a government that behaves this way is not ideal, even though I know about the HRCs in Canada. Governments and humans ali

1) You aren't challenging the majority's opinion. You're deciding that your opinion is correct and acting on it.2) In acting on your opinion, you interfere unjustly with whomever's stuff you've decided to take.

He was accused of challenging an idea and sentenced to death for it. Yet challenging an idea confers no harm on others. Imposing ones religious beliefs and executing those who question them DOES confer harm. As does your taking of others' property.

He was accused of challenging an idea and sentenced to death for it. Yet challenging an idea confers no harm on others.

It does if your reality consists of the belief that blasphemy and enciting others to blasphemy will literally send them to hell. That's one reason religion is dangerous. It's not based on a rational reality. It's based on extreme beliefs that aren't supported by the best forms of truth we know (scientific fact), and it can therefore be manipulated and twisted to vilify others.

He wasn't really charged for the blasphemy, it's because he was very critical of the government and some of their corrupt friends, and they found something useful to charge him with.

"Kambakhsh's journalist brother, Yaqoub Ibrahimi, has said he believes the blasphemy charges were a pretext and that Ibrahimi was the authorities' real target because of articles he wrote about abuses by local warlords and militias."

That's not the way the Afghan public sees it. And ultimately in today's world, your conviction is heavily determined by the public's or more correctly the media's opinion of your guilt. If the vocal majority think something should be a crime, it will become one.

But, do you think that western society is really any better in this regard? A thought experiment if you will. Replace the women's rights pamphlet with a (non-explicit) circular defending paedophilia. Do you think our society would still protect your freedom of speech if you began circulating that? How long before they beat a confession out of you? Who's going to defend you?

"Blasphemy" as a concept is not restricted to religious matters. There are many things that even supposedly free societies will not allow to be discussed. As George Carlin said, you don't have rights. You have privileges. Privileges that can be revoked at any time.

Punishment will fit the crime, only if society demands it. I doubt the CRTC will even investigate the matter, let alone throw half million dollar fines for what can be seen on regular airwaves after midnight in Toronto.

Replace the women's rights pamphlet with a (non-explicit) circular defending paedophilia. Do you think our society would still protect your freedom of speech if you began circulating that? How long before they beat a confession out of you? Who's going to defend you?

I don't think I'd get 20 years in jail for doing that. And if I get beaten up, it won't be with the government's approval. As for the confession, a confession to what? Where will they find evidence of me committing paedophilia? Will it be in a secret trial, like the trial for this Afghan student? Western society is far better in this regard than what you try to make it look like it is.

No, but you might get railroaded for another crime which you did not commit.

And if I get beaten up, it won't be with the government's approval.

Depends on how you look at it, getting sent to federal PYITA prison is approval that might as well be official except for the deliberate ignorance of the people running the system. Even if you aren't sent to prison, there is still plenty of opportunity for tacit approval of a beat-down.

There are many things that even supposedly free societies will not allow to be discussed.

The term for that is 'taboo'. It existed in societies from the very beginning, still exist today, and considering human nature, will still exist in the future in one form or another.

As George Carlin said, you don't have rights. You have privileges. Privileges that can be revoked at any time.

Absolutely! Rights are only rights as long as they are upheld by the mighty. Occasionally, they help the not-so-powerful average guys, but usually, rights are just one manifestation of the current balance of power in a society. Just look at the rights the US grants to the content industry w.r.t. the right the US grants to grannies and 7 year-olds who commited the unpardonable "crime" of copying a bunch of mp3s. Or the rights of big business, banks etc. to get a bailout, w.r.t. the "rights" of broke homeowners to be evicted and thrown on the street.

It's really that simple, but very few people realize it because the harsh truth hurts.

True enough, they are actually closer to polar opposites from an ethical standpoint. Pedophilia involves the (sexual) exploitation of a category of humans who are vulnerable due to naturally lower economic and legal standing (i.e. the average earning potential and intellectual development of juveniles is naturally less than that of mature adults due to limited age and experience - a difference which is eliminated given time and education). Fighting for women's rights involves combating the exploitation of a category of humans who are being artificially forced to have lower economic and legal standing (potential physical strength is no longer a significantly defining factor in an industrial or post-industrial society).

Pedophilia is not the same thing as racism.

Well, racism usually singles out an ethnically-identifiable group, claiming it is inherently (genetically) inferior or evil, and argues that group should have lower economic and legal standing. These arguments are usually given as a justification for the subjugation and exploitation of that ethnic subgroup or of the resources under their control. So while racism is not the same thing as pedophilia and they are expressed in different ways, there are definitely some strong parallels.

Try replacing "racism" in your sentence with "woman's rights".

In a sense you are correct that advocating any of the three positions involves challenging and advocating replacement of current locally-accepted social standards with different ones. However, one type of advocacy (defending women's rights) is supported by strong ethical reasoning and documented scientific (biological) evidence, whereas similar types of evidence and argument directly contradict the other two types of advocacy. Generally, Western culture has become economically and militarily dominant because it has either adopted or "lucked into"1 approaches supported by ethical and scientific arguments, even when countered by religious or discriminatory prejudices. Major setbacks have occurred when we have set those principles aside in favour of ideology. So there's good reasons for the choices our society has made and even better reasons to defend them.

However the problem is that we are trying to impose the ethics of a post-industrial society on a primarily agrarian and feudal society. Note that that description still applies to most of the Middle East and south-central Asia (with limited exceptions). A lesser but similar dichotomy also applies to even the USA (more fundamentalist religious ideology in the more agrarian central and southern states as opposed to the more urbanized "blue" states).

Now, religious fundamentalists tend to decry the moral relativism implied by the previous paragraph, even though it's backed up by pretty strong empirical evidence. In the long run, I'll always bet on empirical evidence over ideology. The problem with fundamentalists who rail against moral relativism is that there are many different strains of fundamentalism with varying "moral absolutes", which would inevitably draw them into bloody conflict with each other (i.e. Shiite/Shia and Sunni extremists in Iraq and elsewhere) if they didn't consider ethical/scientific secularism to be even more offencive.

Overall, the best long term way to combat fundamentalism in the third world is to pull them out of a feudal and agrarian economy. In some states, promoting economic and industrial development will suffice. However in other states, the feudal order is supported by petroleum sales, and the status quo will only change with the complete replacement or obsolescence of petroleum as a major world energy source. So one way or another, it's going to happen in the next 100 years, but we can do a lot of damage to ourselves in the meantime.

You apparently believe that, on some concrete, meaningful level - concrete enough to form a moral argument upon it - pedophilia is analogous to women's rights. Do you think that's "nuance," or something?

If you think that, then you have either totally misunderstood my (perfectly clear) meaning, or (and I think this is more likely) you do not fully understand, appreciate and/or accept the concept of freedom of speech. This is a common problem.

It is fair because it shows the "War on Drugs" priorities are out of whack, if their actual goal is reducing death and other harm caused by addictive drug use. It also makes the "War on Terror" equally laughable, where are those trillions to fight legal drug and disease deaths?

Millions of people aren't going to take up mainlining heroin just because it gets de-criminalised. Having clean heroin of a known dosage, would also reduce a lot of those deaths (OD's spike when junkies change supplier because of the

While there are no deaths directly attributable to marijuana alone, marijuana + alcohol is a noticeably more dangerous combination than just alcohol. As a potent antiemetic, marijuana will prevent you from vomiting up the alcohol still in your stomach unabsorbed when your body otherwise would, making it *far* easier to die from alcohol poisoning. Yes, the alcohol does the actual killing, but the marijuana is far from an innocent bystander.

That said, I fully support legalization of marijuana -- I just think it does people a disservice to claim it's completely safe when there is a common and potentially fatal drug interaction to be aware of.

And for the record, death tolls for the various psychedelics are also quite low. There is significant variation among them, though, with some being quite safe (eg LSD) and others less so (MDMA and other amphetamine / methamphetamine based psychedelics are still potent stimulants, with all their attendant risks).

Those come with warnings about the interactions with alcohol. Responsibly advocates of marijuana legalization, if they're busy comparing marijuana risks to those of other drugs, should do the same. Especially since claiming the "zero deaths" statistic is highly misleading at best, given the incidence of fatal interactions. Combined OD deaths for other recreational drugs aren't normally left out of the statistics completely.

Oh, and if we're being rigorous about our statistics, do the alcohol deaths includ

So now you are in favour of government regulation instead of the free market?

But it doesn't help anyone to argue that marijuana is 100% safe any more than it does to overinflate its dangers.

I've never heard anyone claim that it is 100% safe. The air we breathe isn't 100% safe. It is *safer* than alcohol as you said, and we don't put people in jail for brewing their own beer.

A market where buyers don't have good information isn't a free market; there are plenty of agents aside from the government that can get in the way of a free market. I'm generally in favor of labeling laws and product purity laws, but against bans on sales and such. I see nothing incongruous about believing that the government should require sellers of products represent those products accurately. Also, my support for both legalization and free markets is as much pragmatic as idealogical -- in both cases

And how many of those are a result of contaminated supplies with unpredictable strength, things that are a direct result of prohibition? It's easy to overdose when you never know how much you're going to be taking.

What utter rubbish. There isn't much that causes more physical harm and dependence than heroin.

Try to read up on the effects of alcohol dependence and alcohol withdrawal. You can start here [wikipedia.org]. Alcohol is actually one of the few drugs whose withdrawal symptoms can kill you. (Which is also why, if you want to break an addiction to alcohol, you need to see a doctor so that you can be carefully monitored and treated.) Alcohol is a legal drug, but it can still be incredibly dangerous to your health, even more

A smack addiction, provided the drug is clean and doesn't involve risks associated with crime to get it, won't harm the body. It's not carcinogenic, like anything smoked, it's not bad for the heart, like alcohol, baccy, cocaine and speed, it doesn't lead to psychosis, like weed and speed and cocaine can.

As for dependence, you are of course right; but that's not dangerous in and of itself. As with any opiate, if you get a continuing clean supply you won't have

Look, it is that very prohibition which inflates the price and causes these farmers to resort to growing poppies instead of say - wheat. All I'm trying to get at here is that this is absurd and ridiculous. This government is completely unwilling and unable to put in place reforms to reduce the poppy industry and replace it with something a little less devastating for the populace. Yet, they jump at the opportunity to put a journalist in jail for spreading some truth about human rights abuses in his own country.

A) They're not forcing men and boys to grow beards
B) Girls and women are allowed to attend schools
C) They're not blowing or destroying religious icons from other religions or artifacts from 2,000 years ago
D) Roads, an electric grid and sewer systems are being (very slowly) built
E) Every person who wants to vote is allowed to
F) And most importantly, women are not being forced to wear burkhas if they don't want to

Granted this current ruling is nonsense and Kharzai knows it, but he is very weak and doesn't have the backing to overturn the verdict.

I'm not saying the current government is perfect. Far from it. But to compare this government, which is working with other countries to attempt to undo nearly 40 years of war and strife, to the Taliban is disingenuous. It will take, at a minimum, ten years to begin to change the mindset of the people, specifically the warlords and the men, to allow greater freedoms.

Everyone knows the less evil is better. However, if you think that any evil is bad, I'll agree. Lets become anarchists without any government evil at all, because we don't have any government.

Here's a little cultural lesson for you, some places in the world are "Not Nice" to your way of thinking or life, and visa versa. The whole "multicultural" model says that we can't "judge" their culture as it is equal to our own.

Good thing Canadian troops have been dying in Afghanistan year after year to defend and support this regime. It would be a shame if we let radicals take it over, or if it became corrupt, or if Afghanis went back to growing poppies.
Nope. Everything is hunky dory. Stay the course!

Agreed. And I used to be in the infantry. If they were accomplishing something worth dying for, I wouldn't have a problem with the sacrifices Canada has made. But when you look at the kind of power structyre that were are being asked to support, it turns my stomach.

I have heard of attrocities like this in Afghanistan for a very long time. Horrible things done to women, historical art destroyed and all manner of illustrations proving that their religious belief and practice is simply inhuman, inhumane and just plain wrong. And when the US first invaded Afghanistan I thought it was stupid, but MAYBE something good could come of this... the whole idea of ousting the evils of their muslim laws and brutalities, bringing in democracy... waving American flags! I admit I was hoping for a silver lining all though the black cloud of war.

So now, not only are young service men with good hearts and intention being WASTED, KILLED and otherwise DESTROYED for a meaningless cause, the crap that was going on before is still going on in Afghanistan. They are still brutal muslims abusing and killing women and anyone who might try to defend them.

So why the heck are US troops still occupying Afghanistan if this still is still going to be allowed?

My sane side says we need to leave Iraq and Afghanistan YESTERDAY and try our best to look the other way while all these things are happening. It does no good for us to have a closer look at it and do nothing to stop it.

My insane side says we need to bomb their land until it turns into solid glass and nothing can live there ever again.

With this single news story, the last remnant of hope that just MAYBE something good and decent may have come from the US invasion and occupation of these foreign sovereign nations just died.

We need to pull all of our military sons and daughters out of there because they are not support ANYONE's freedom. Not theirs and not ours. Their presence makes people hate the US more and more which ultimately makes us far less safe than ever before.

What's more, we're in a tremendous fight for our own democratic republic and the integrity of the nation's constitution. "Looks what's going on over there!" says Cheney and Company, "Let's spend all of your money on that cause over there because you are scared! Pay no attention to the new laws and police we are creating or anything else we are doing... we are trying to secure your freedom."

Despite nationwide public support for his initial death sentence... local journalists who expressed support for him were warned they would be arrested if they persisted

I bet the polls and statements that show nationwide public support weren't at all influenced in the same manner that local journalists were!
Other posters are saying that the death sentence is the will of the citizens and not an act of a totalitarian government. They are naive in their doublethink.

Didn't the US introduce democracy in Afghanistan? Then why wasn't free speech brought as well? Isn't free speech an essential right in a democracy?

Or was the main reason, perhaps, just to get rid of the Taliban and democracy was just a trendy word that matched the spin?

Sure the Afghan may be reluctant in allowing free speech. Then why did the US bother to pretend to help them? And after retreating, how long before Taliban is back in business in Afghanistan?

IMHO after 9/11 the US had a certain right -which is highly debatable- to terminate terrorist activities in Afghanistan. It would probably have been just as effective to, er, shut down terrorist business. And to repeat when necessary. Cheaper and fairer.